Original Fakes

Some interesting articles in the papers this last week.

Latha Jishnu’s written a characteristically insightful and analytical piece about GI registration in India. Excerpts:

In recent months there has been practically a stampede for GI registration in India. Unlike the developed countries which use it primarily for food products (Champagne, of course, and things like Parma Ham), India has extended GI protection to products across the spectrum, from handicrafts to flowers and spices. Thus the Aranmula mirror, along with assorted silks, saris, textiles and embroidery styles, joins soaps, incense, different varieties of jasmines, several strains of rice, tea, betel leaf, pepper and chillies to get the GI tag.

The GI Registry at Chennai, where right-holders can register their products, is getting inundated. The question, however, is how much of a protection a GI offers. For one, other WTO members are not obliged to ensure the same kind of protection to all Indian GIs because there is a problem of hierarchy. Although TRIPS has a single definition for all GIs, it has authorised a two-level system of protection: one, a general protection under Article 22, and the other, a higher level under Article 23 that is applicable only to wines and spirits.

According to some experts, Article 22 is not good enough. It is simply a law against unfair trade practices and for consumer protection and is not really for IPR protection. A producer not belonging to a specific geographical region could still use the GI as long as the product’s true origin is indicated on the label. In other words, an Aranmula mirror could be turned out from, say, Houston in Texas, thus allowing an American producer to free ride on the reputation and market goodwill created by Keralite artisans over two centuries. Tellicherry pepper and Udupi jasmine thus far are not in the same class as wine from Champagne.

Lawrence Liang’s article in the Indian Express covers the recent Rakesh Roshan V Ram Sampath row in the Bombay High Court and makes some poignant comments on creativity, copying and copyright.

The language of the case and the reportage around it rely very heavily on the language of theft, property and damages for infringement of copyright and plagiarism in music. This rather hasty leap of faith to stricter enforcement of music copyright does not seem to find too much support in the history of music itself. While there was surely a violation of propriety in the Ram Sampath case, the important question that emerges is the impact of thinking of creativity only in terms of property. The history of copying, appropriation and plagiarism is in fact central to the history of various forms of cultural production, including music. We should therefore be a little cautious when we celebrate this case for the quick remedy it provided to an act of copying.

The act of copying has been central to the ways in which culture has flowed through various parts of the world, transcending the limitations set by space and time. Thus a Polish folk song, “Szla dzieweczka do gajeczka”, becomes a part of Indian popular consciousness through its adaptation as Salil Chaudhury’s “Dil Tadap Tadap Ke” from Madhumati. Secondly, the creation of music has always relied on adaptations, influences and inspirations, whether conscious or unconscious. It would be unfortunate if as a result of aggressive copyright suits, we reach a situation like the United States where even subconscious copying is held to be infringement. In a case brought by a band, The Chiffons, against former Beatle George Harrison, the court held that Harrison’s “My Sweet Lord” was in infringement of The Chiffons’ “He’s so fine”, even though the judge believed that Harrison did not intentionally copy the song and had only been inspired by it subconsciously.

In our enthusiasm to protect the creator and ensure that he gets his just rewards, let’s not forget that the sense of touch is not limited to the hand, but extends to our eyes and ears. It is only natural that when we create something, it will be influenced by things we have read, heard or seen, even if they are not our property. Walter Benjamin describes this form of mimicry as a form of learning as a “sensuous similarity”, a right to copy, which should be as jealously guarded as copyright.